The Canadian Press reports that the government plans to launch a national digital economy strategy consultation, with a discussion paper inviting public comment to be announced shortly.
Post Tagged with: "clement"
Clement and Moore on C-61, Copyright Reform and Innovation
As Industry Minister Tony Clement and Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore continue to work on a copyright reform package, it is worth reviewing comments from both Ministers over the past year about C-61, copyright reform, and innovation. The vision presented is that the world has changed since C-61, Canada has flexibility in how it implements digital reforms, and that technology and the Internet should be embraced as a great opportunity.
Clement on C-61 in July 2009 at the Calgary roundtable:
"C-61 doesn't exist anymore, it obviously died with the last Parliament, and if you think that there are other ways that we should frame new legislation, by all means please bring that to our attention as well. Don't feel constrained by the formulation in C-61. James and I are of the view that already some aspects of that Bill are out of date such as the movement of technology."
Fair is Fair: Fix Fair Dealing Say Library, Education, Creator, and Consumer Groups
More than 25 library, education, creator, and consumer groups have issued a public letter calling on Industry Minister Tony Clement and Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore to adopt a flexible fair dealing approach. The letter argues for a "such as" approach to fair dealing by making the current list of […]
Clement: Copyright Bill Before the Summer
The Wire Report reports that Industry Minister Tony Clement has confirmed that the government plans to introduce a new copyright bill before the summer recess. Clement also commented on ACTA, stating that it is his position that "whatever comes out of ACTA has to be compliant with our laws."
Gov’t Reverses on CAP Cuts
Industry Minister Tony Clement has reversed on the cuts to the Community Access Program. Clement told a press scrum this afternoon that it was a funding envelope misunderstanding.